Two reports on
detention centres have been published in Spain and France that
highlight a situation in which foreigners are experiencing conditions
that are often worse than those in prisons as a result of administrative
offences (irregular residence) and an aim to maximise the rates
of detention and returns. This has led to large-scale violations
of human rights and to policies that reduce judicial oversight
and the possibility of detained foreigners to effectively exercise
their rights through judicial proceedings and access to effective
remedies.
The Spanish organisations that are part of the Migreurop network
have published a report on centres for the detention of migrants
(Centros de Internamiento de Extranjeros, CIE) entitled "CIE,
Derechos vulnerados". It includes in-depth reports on the
fact-finding visits carried out in four of Spain's nine detention
centres, in Algeciras, Barcelona, Madrid and Málaga (the
others are in Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tarifa, Tenerife and
Valencia).

This is a translation of the "final conclusions" of
the report that highlights the violation of rights in CIEs.

"Final conclusions"

The analysis on the detention centres for foreigners that were
visited concludes that they are veritable prisons, in
form and substance alike, in spite of their regulation establishing
that these facilities cannot have the character of a prison facility
because they hold people who have not committed a crime, but
rather, an administrative offence, as applies to not possessing
regular documentation. In the four cases that are reported, the
facilities in which they are placed formerly belonged to imprisonment
centres for convicts, and their prison-like imprint is notorious.

This penitentiary character is something that goes beyond the
architecture and physionomy of CIEs, spreading to the deprivation
of the rights of the people detained in these centres, which
is sometimes greater than that applied in prisons. The
denial in legislation of the prison-like character of detention
centres for foreigners presumes that the quality of the stay
of detained people must be higher than that which exists in prisons,
that is, it must entail a privileged regime (Constitutional Court
sentence, 115/87), and this does not reflect the truth.

The law establishes that people who are placed in CIEs only
face a restriction of their freedom of movement. For this
reason, as a rule, the rest of their rights should be respected,
whereas they are often violated so that, without being criminals,
they are condemned to conditions that are far worse than those
to which people who have committed crimes are subjected. This
is the sense of Migreurop's demand that these centres be equipped
with social, legal, cultural and health services.

Many of the issues that are detailed in the report result from
the absence of a specific law to regulate the legal regime
of these centres, which leads to the consequence of a discretionality
and arbitrariness that it is urgent to put an end to. For this
reason, the organisations that are members of the Migreurop network
have repeatedly called for legislation to regulate the operation
of these centres, in order to prevent abuses of people's fundamental
rights. The organisations deem that it is urgent to approve
a norm with the status of an organic law, rather than a regulation
as is envisaged. This law should be drafted following a procedure
of social dialogue.

The absence of a law worsens the situation, especially when it
can be noticed that there is scarce or non-existent control
over these places by the judicial authorities that are competent.
This gives rise to serious legal insecurity and an evident lack
of safeguards for people who are confined there, granting the
centres' management a practically unquestionable authority.
Furthermore, the members of associations who have visited the
CIEs appreciated defects in the setting up of fire prevention
systems and evacuation plans that may result in tragic events,
as happened during the fire in the cells of Málaga police
station in 2002, in which seven people died.

The visit in CIEs emphatically revealed that fundamental rights
that are included in legislation on prison facilities are
not guaranteed, like the lack of interpreters that
renders effective communication impossible and leads to the misinformation
of internees; access to legal defence is not guaranteed,
resulting in a lack of safeguards; the impossibility of staying
with their families; the absence of cameras in parts of
the facilities, which makes it impossible to verify its correct
functioning, the behaviour of officers and the prevention of
illegal activities - which has been reported on several occasions
to social organisations by those who have suffered attacks. Moreover,
it has been noted that there are protocols and administrative
procedures that are unsuitable for the purpose of allowing detainees
to file complaints in a safe and confidential manner concerning
violations of their rights.

Another important aspect is the violation of the right to
intimacy in conversations through the use of screens during
visits, which prevents physical contact with relatives and
friends, or of the right to moral integrity that sharing
a room of just a few square metres with several people entails.

A particularly relevant matter in this context is the practice
of stripping people naked upon admission into the Algeciras
CIE, which is absolutely intolerable and represents a
clear and authentic attack against human rights. In addition,
it is surprising that in most CIEs people are not identified
by their name and surname, but rather, by a number, a
fact that entails a serious dehumanisation and devaluation of
detainees in a CIE.

Moreover, it still happens frequently that people who have
health problems, particularly psychiatric ones, and pregnant
women are detained in a centre that has deficiencies that
are more than evident, which lack the resources to be able to
give these people adequate care.

Finally, some of the facilities that we visited, especially those
in Málaga and Algeciras, display a noteworthy deterioration
of their facilities that led to them being considered inadequate
in the past as prisons due to the risks for the health and safety
of detainees but which, coversely, are deemed appropriate for
foreigners in a detention regime.

For all these reasons, the organisations that are part of
the Migreurop network call for the closure of detention centres
for foreigners, which they consider facilities for the ill-treatment
of people that cannot continue to exist. In the meantime,
they demand the approval of an organic law on CIEs to regulate
the functioning of these centres and to guarantee respect for
the rights of the people who are held there."

The five associations that operate in French detention centres
(centres de rétention administrative, CRAs), Assfam, Cimade,
Forum Réfugiés, France Terre d'Asile and Ordre
de Malte France, have jointly produced an in-depth report on
detention centres and facilities in which foreigners are held
as a result of irregular status in France. It brings together
exhaustive statistical data, analysis of themes including "Detention:
a place of distress governed by arbitrariness", "The
uncertain fate of ill foreigners in detention", "The
family, disrupted by detention", "Applying for asylum
in detention: a regime of exception", "Undermining
freedom of movement", "The injustifiable criminalisation
of migrants in an irregular situation", "A policy that
is clearly aimed at removing Roma people", "Detention
of unaccompanied minors" and "Overseas territories:
rights sold cheaply in a context of mass detention and returns",
and analysis of each of France's CRAs that includes a wealth
of official data, personal observations and the stories of detainees,
which are often tragic.

The following is the translation of an extract from the report's
introduction:

"In a field as sensitive as administrative detention,
it is essential to have an overall view of the truth about the
detention of foreigners in France: it is the only way to enable
a description of the entire system that has been drawn up, developed
and reinforced in France over the years, and to take stock of
human rights violations.

This annual report is a testimony of life in French administrative
detention centres. What have we noticed that is most striking?

First of all, the deterioration caused by the "policy of
figures" that was established in 2002 and by a regime of
exception that is strengthened year after year. In 2010, over
60,000 people have passed through a centre on the mainland or
in overseas territories. The number of families and children
who are detained in the centres has grown. The same applies to
numerous Romanian nationals -mainly Roma people- in the context
of a repressive escalation that drawn criticisism from the European
Union.

In this place for the denial of freedom that administrative detention
represents, the slightest negligence regarding the law can take
on an entirely different dimension. The reality of the centres,
which is soon raised when serious events make the news, is that
of a daily tension, of a violence that is expressed in many ways,
of a distress that is too often confronted by arbitrary practices.

This regime of exception is far worse in the centres in overseas
territories, where the state tolerates that three people should
share the space for one and that, in order to enact a swift removal,
the administration may not wait for the administrative judge's
decisions, thus paying scant attention to the lawfulness of a
return that is often irreversible.

These administrative and police practices, these conditions for
stopping people and denying them freedom, for readmission at
borders, are something that we note and cannot fail to draw a
damning conclusion on: that of an obsession with statistics at
the expense of the law. In other terms, it is a matter of a policy
that, far too often, pushes the authorities into expelling more
foreigners at any cost, while disregarding procedures and the
most basic rights, while it implements a removal policy that
displays its ineffectiveness and injustice.

The year 2010 and the first months of 2011 were marked by the
discussion and subsequent adoption of a new law on foreigners
against which our associations mobilised. It set the extension
of the maximum length of detention at 45 days and the limiting
of the intervention of the juge des libertés [judge tasked
with ruling on the lawfulness of detention] to controlling procedural
matters. It confirmed that detention has become a routine means
of managing the removal of foreigners in an irregular situation,
and considerably reduced control over police and administrative
practices by the judicial power.

Finally, it is this turning of administrative detention into
routine, contrary to the spirit of European law, that we criticise
together, as we do with regards to the absurd situations and
attacks on people's rights and dignity that a policy marked by
the obsession of attaining targets involving figures gives rise
to."

&COPY; Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X.
Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing"
is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage
by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation
holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights
organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with
such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that
licence and to local copyright law.